Knowing about Knowing

[Loki]

Have you ever just stopped and asked yourself the most fundamental of all questions?

The most fundamental question I've ever been able to ask is -> "What does it mean to know?"

So, what, at the most fundamental level, is knowing?

Anyone?

[Cory Duchesne]

What I find helpful is to realize that in order to ask that question, you have to already know.

What I mean is, your doubt is based on something you have already accepted. Kind of like trying to light a fire that has already been lit, or trying to extinguish something that has already been extinguished.

In other words, you might feel as if you truly know nothing when you ask such a question, but the truth is that every single word you uttered is a subscription to knowledge.

Start with the first word of your question: "what"

You used it. But are you clear on what it means? If you are clear about the meaning of "what" then I think you will be clear on what it means to know.

[Steven Coyle]

Chalk to chalkboard.

To know: the apple is a grave mother who never slept

[mensa-maniac]

What is it like to know?

This is a question worth answering

It's like you naturally intuitively know the answer to something, like the answer is already in your head while asked, like a divine understanding gives you the confidence that the answer is an indisputable one.

Knowing is knowing is knowing like you know the answer to something others don't know. Knowing knowledge differs from knowing. Knowledge is already known, but knowing is not knowledge unless proven, it is knowing something others don't know.

I can expound further on this, but not now.

[Ryan Rudolph]

I think its important to ask the ways in which people come to believe they know something.

One of the most faulty way of knowing is intuition or gut feelings, especially when such feelings are not rooted in sound logic, but rather human wishes and desires.

Absolute knowledge is acquired through reasoning, through defining the most important terms in life, and reflecting back on ones experience in order to stimulate mental change. The right knowledge shakes the spirit violently until there is nothing left to shake.

Start with puzzled questions, and finish with the right definition, until the question is rendered redundant.

[Loki]

Start with the first word of your question: "what"

You used it. But are you clear on what it means? If you are clear about the meaning of "what" then I think you will be clear on what it means to know.

"what" [in the context I was using] implies a searching for something. e.g., "what the hell did I do with my keys?"

What I mean is, your doubt is based on something you have already accepted

No, it's like me asking "what should I do today?" I agree there is a certain doubt involved in regards to what I am actually going to do but you are wrong in the sense that I haven't already decided or accepted what I am going to do. That's why I am asking the damn question, because I don't know!

[Loki]

Start with puzzled questions, and finish with the right definition, until the question is rendered redundant.

How do I know what the "right" definition is?

[Cory Duchesne]

Start with the first word of your question: "what"

You used it. But are you clear on what it means? If you are clear about the meaning of "what" then I think you will be clear on what it means to know.

"what" [in the context I was using] implies a searching for something. e.g., "what the hell did I do with my keys?"

Ok, so you search for your keys. Would you still ask where your keys were after you found them? Or would you have attained knowledge?

What I mean is, your doubt is based on something you have already accepted

No, it's like me asking "what should I do today?" I agree there is a certain doubt involved in regards to what I am actually going to do but you are wrong in the sense that I haven't already decided or accepted what I am going to do.

You can't compare those two questions! The original question is about knowledge, the second one is about what you are going to do. The second one is rational because you haven't done what it is you are going to do. However the first question is irrational because you can't ask a question until you already know something. So you are asking what knowing is, but you are ignoring the assumptions latent in the very question.

So what I'm saying is that the answer lies in the very nature of the question. Understanding the nature of the question is what will yield the answer. Don't look for the answer outside of the question, rather look into the question.

[Steven Coyle]

Throw a basketball into a hamper...

[Pincho Paxton]

I think that we all have some sort of savant aspect to our brains. For some it is mathematical, for others it is visual, and for others it is language, or music. To know is to fill the savant needs. Mine is visual, and I want to fill the hunger of "What exactly am I looking at?" So that I can look at a Nebula and say "That is the formation of a Galaxy." and another Nebula that looks pretty similar is not the same thing.. "That is two space bubbles colliding." I want to fill all of the unknowns, from the beginning of time, to the atomic scale, to the hugest scale, all visually. But other people want to fill different hungers for their savant region. You might want to create music, but never pick up a guitar. The know is never realised, and you just become lazy. You might want to solve an old mathematical problem, you might feel the joy afterwards. Finally your savant appetite is quenched. Although savant is detected easily in Autistic people, I think that it is only because they fill their hunger as fast as they can. They are greedy to know something. Being greedy to know something makes you a super talented individual. But only the autistic push this to the limit. The reward for them is never satisfying, as they do not feel the euphoria of the knowledge that they have gained. The euphoria makes us full, and we stop trying to fill the hunger, but if we can contain our euphoria we can go even further into super human knowledge. So it boils down to filling a hunger in our minds.

[mensa-maniac]

Pincho

As much as I agree with much of what you say, I have to respectfully disagree with your idea that "know" is not realized.

I believe 'know' is realized in a significant way, that teaches others. To know is to influence others, but not necessarily accepted.

To know what is already known is not knowledge, it is discovery. But, to discover what no one else knows is original, non-circulated, existent knowledge undiscovered.

[Loki]

Start with the first word of your question: "what"

You used it. But are you clear on what it means? If you are clear about the meaning of "what" then I think you will be clear on what it means to know.

"what" [in the context I was using] implies a searching for something. e.g., "what the hell did I do with my keys?"

Ok, so you search for your keys. Would you still ask where your keys were after you found them? Or would you have attained knowledge?

So you are saying that the identification of a thing is knowledge? When we don't know something, it's because we haven't identified it?

If this is the case, how can we know that for sure?

[Cory Duchesne]

So you are saying that the identification of a thing is knowledge? When we don't know something, it's because we haven't identified it?

Yes. However, to realize you don't know something, is to already know something else. Knowledge is the foundation of doubt. If you undermine the knowledge, then you will completely extinguish consciousness altogether.

how can we know that for sure?

Your question is irrational, because each word of your question is a subscription to knowledge. You have already made identifications, you already know, so your effort to doubt involves acceptance. Acceptance is knowledge.

Every time you try to doubt the foundation of knowledge (A=A), you have already given in to it.

You can't logically doubt the thing which makes doubt possible. Doubt depends on A=A They arise together. So when you doubt A=A, it's a lot like trying to extinguish a fire by putting more wood on it. Your doubt is just fueling the fire.

[Nick]

To know is to be conscious. To doubt this is a vain attempt to deny the fact that you are indeed conscious. At the very least, we must in fact know that we don't know. We are all Buddhas.

[Steven Coyle]

Boo ya!

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

I'd say that knowing something is a state of having attained enough indicators of the truth of a matter, including unanimous results of inquisitions meeting the challenge that a thing is not untrue, to logically conclude that the matter is a fact.

A lighter definition would be something to the effect of attaining enough indicators to achieve a state of satisfaction that a matter is true. This would include false knowing because the threshold of criteria is a feeling of satisfaction rather than a measure of logic.

[Cory Duchesne]

I'd say that knowing something is a state of having attained enough indicators of the truth of a matter, including unanimous results of inquisitions meeting the challenge that a thing is not untrue, to logically conclude that the matter is a fact.

That sounds like the scientific method, which I don't think is knowing at the most fundamental level.

You say that knowing requires multiple "indicators", however, when you find an indicator, does that indicator need to be backed up by more indicators?

A lighter definition would be something to the effect of attaining enough indicators to achieve a state of satisfaction that a matter is true. This would include false knowing because the threshold of criteria is a feeling of satisfaction rather than a measure of logic.

Still, I think the importance you place on attaining a quantity of indicators deviates too far from the issue Loki brought up in the first post. Namely, what is knowing at the most fundamental level.

[mensa-maniac]

Knowing about knowing

Knowing about knowing is a realization that truth abides within, that you're aware you know things, like not knowing things. Knowing is an understanding of self-awareness of knowing knowing. Self-assurance is the confidence of knowing knowing.

Knowing knowing is equal to saying Know Thyself!

To know is to accept truth, apply it, and watch it grow!

Truth is logic and the ability to reason it.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

I think the importance you place on attaining a quantity of indicators deviates too far from the issue Loki brought up in the first post. Namely, what is knowing at the most fundamental level.

I suspect that you might be using a narrower definition of "indicator" than I meant. In include thoughts, the thinker, and disembodied concepts such as logic.

What I find helpful is to realize that in order to ask that question, you have to already know.

It seems to me that here you have simply substituted knowledge in the "A thought requires a thinker to think the thought" concept, and knowledge requires more substantiation than just any thought.

[Pincho Paxton]

Pincho

As much as I agree with much of what you say, I have to respectfully disagree with your idea that "know" is not realized.

I believe 'know' is realized in a significant way, that teaches others. To know is to influence others, but not necessarily accepted.

To know what is already known is not knowledge, it is discovery. But, to discover what no one else knows is original, non-circulated, existent knowledge undiscovered.

I just meant that the know is not realised by the person who loves music, and never picks up a guitar, or musical instrument.

[Cory Duchesne]

I think the importance you place on attaining a quantity of indicators deviates too far from the issue Loki brought up in the first post. Namely, what is knowing at the most fundamental level.

I suspect that you might be using a narrower definition of "indicator" than I meant. I include thoughts, the thinker, and disembodied concepts such as logic.

Ok, but still, your indicators are all knowledge (e.g., taking a pool of knowledge to justify a more advanced piece of knowledge). Knowing at it's most fundamental is simply accepting an appearance as an appearance. Recognition of a thing in contrast to other things is the simplest form of knowing, and it doesn't require other indicators to validate the appearances that are experienced.

What I find helpful is to realize that in order to ask that question, you have to already know.

It seems to me that here you have simply substituted knowledge in the "A thought requires a thinker to think the thought" concept, and knowledge requires more substantiation than just any thought.

Knowledge at it's most fundamental level is simply A is A. You can't reduce it any simpler. We all function under the premise of A=A, so it's just a matter of becoming conscious about what we already know.

[Loki]

To know is to be conscious. To doubt this is a vain attempt to deny the fact that you are indeed conscious. At the very least, we must in fact know that we don't know. We are all Buddhas.

This confuses me. If we are all Buddhas (enlightened), then what's the point in going after enlightenment?

[Ryan Rudolph]

Loki,

How do I know what the "right" definition is?

definitions that help to reveal the nature of the self. Study human behavior critically, and self-knowledge will be attained and contineously confirmed through yourself and others.

Start with this simple idea: Human/Animal behavior is something to be understood as a means to transcend what is possible to transcend.

[Loki]

Loki,

How do I know what the "right" definition is?

definitions that help to reveal the nature of the self.

how do you know what the nature of the self is?

[Loki]

Knowledge at it's most fundamental level is simply A is A. You can't reduce it any simpler. We all function under the premise of A=A, so it's just a matter of becoming conscious about what we already know.

Cory, let's imagine that I'm staring at a dog. I recognize the dog as a dog, or I at least distinguish him as a thing in contrast to the other surrounding things.

Now, what if I just doubt it? What if I just look at the dog with uncertainty?

My point is that A=A is not absolute. You can look at something, and you can doubt it. You can just go blank. You can abide in uncertainty.